The true face of Conservatism?

I’ve written and thought a lot about rural conservatism, so the “controversy” unfolding in Virginia is particularly fascinating to me.

Republican Bob McDonnell is the front-runner in that state’s gubernatorial race. He has portrayed himself as a social moderate and a relatively easy-going fiscal conservative.

The twist came when the Washington Post published excerpts of McDonnell’s doctoral thesis, published when he was in his mid-thirties and a student at the evangelical Regent University.

In the paper, McDonnell lays out his political agenda for the Republican Party and what he describes as its “vision for the family.”

It’s a fascinating, candid and intelligent appraisal of the trends which many conservatives decry in our society.

Key problems include a “decline in the respect for authority” and “a selfish individualism.”

McDonnell argues that the dangers facing America stem from a fundamental clash between “traditional morality and absolutism” (which he clearly favors) and “the modern pervasive relativism of truth, ethics and justice.”

The loser in all this change, according to McDonnell, has been the traditional family – once the foundation of what he views as America’s golden age.

McDonnell’s proposed fixes for these problems have drawn a lot of “gotcha” style attention. He suggests the following:

-Use preferential government programs to benefit “married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators…”

-Diminish childcare programs that encourage “the dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family.”

-Erase the “folklore” that church and state shouldn’t mingle in American politics.

“Therefore, government at all levels must help create the legal and financial conditions to unleash the power of the church…”

McDonnell also speaks plainly about the unpopularity of his views and the need for patience, subtlety and “incrementalism” in advocating for socially conservative values.

The essay offers a rich and complex insight into conservative thinking.

And while written 20 years ago, the essay illuminates the current debate over universal healthcare (which McDonnell mentions in his paper).

It lays out the argument that government institutions have systematically eroded the most important institutions in our society: family, church and (to a lesser extent) the free market.

By offering Americans more help, even with the best of intentions, Federal agencies take on even more power — a trend McDonnell calls “government usurpation.”

According to the conservative view, the dangers of that shift outweigh any possible benefits.

Most voters don’t see the world this way. Even most conservatives have grown comfortable with the idea of women in the workplace.

Most Republican leaders no longer support unequal treatment of homosexuals, with the notable exception of same-sex marriage.

What’s more, the idea that government should be an activist player, shaping the economy and providing a social safety net, is increasingly popular.

As a consequence, McDonnell the Candidate has sought to distance himself from McDonnell the Academic. He insists that his views have “evolved.”

I’m skeptical.

The manifesto laid out here may be radical; it may be out of sync with the American mainstream, but it’s also thoughtful, idealistic and ambitious.

It reflects the thinking of a new generation of Republican leaders, educated and trained at conservative institutions like Regent University.

The religious right moved deliberately to foster bright and committed activists such as McDonnell.

Now that they’ve come of age, they should be open about their views and their agenda.

Then American voters would be given a real choice about their leadership and their future.